Re: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

Can I recommend two books

In the Beginning, Henri Blocher IVP 1985

Can we believe Genesis today, Ernest Lucas IVP 2001, but may not be in the
USA

I think a YEC theology makes sense initially with a simple reading of
Genesis but the chief problem is that the arguments for an old earth from
geology are too compelling, and arguments against geology by YECs are
demonstrably false.

One historical question is ; Why did most evangelicals have no problem with
the great age of the earth from 1800 until YECs like Morris and Ham said no
a decade or two ago?

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Plowman, Guy (ELSLON)" <G.Plowman@elsevier.com>
To: "'George Murphy'" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:19 AM
Subject: RE: How to interpret Adam (was: Re: Kerkut)

> >George said: Do you have to know that Adam & Eve were historical figures
> before you have
> >any sense of your own sin & need of forgiveness? Of course not.
>
> In direct answer to your question - No, I don't need to know that Adam and
> Eve are historical figures before I have any sense of my own sin and need
> forgiveness. Having said that, nor do you need Jesus (otherwise most of
the
> people in the Old Testament couldn't have been saved) to have any sense of
> your own sin and need of forgiveness.
>
> However, if I am being intellectually honest, I struggle to read the
> accounts of Adam and the references to him as anything but historical
> references that have a direct implication on the whole bible itself.
Given
> this, do I have to believe Adam was a historical figure to trust the rest
of
> the bible? Yes, I do or I am being dishonest to myself (and therefore to
> others). If I am wrong, God will forgive me for my honest mistakes but He
> would, I believe, be most disappointed if I wasn't being honest.
>
> I am still thinking about old and young earth histories and don't claim to
> be an expert on any of the arguments used either way. However, here is
> where I am in my thinking:
>
> 1. My main objection to a young earth is the starlight problem. The
> only close explanation so far has been the Humphries' Starlight and Time
> and, to be honest, this does seem to be choosing specific boundary
> conditions to match one's need. Having said that, I don't think that the
> human conception of (space)time is yet anywhere near the end of its own
> evolution.
>
> 2. Evolution seems on shaky ground to me. The main thing is that it
> seems to me that there is an overall trend of downward progression within
> species. Mutations seem to lead from perfect to imperfect and the
empirical
> creationist information argument of 'show me one non-contentious counter
> example' seems to be quite powerful. Sometimes you get new species in the
> biological sense but this is humanly defined and may be within the same as
> the kinds of the ark.
>
> 3. For me at least, when I started thinking about the possibility of it
> actually being a young earth, the theology of the bible fell into place in
a
> way which it hadn't for me before.
>
> I am, personally, very glad that issues such as this aren't essential to
> salvation. I means that I can look at the available evidence and
> philosophies, be true to what I find myself believing and still change my
> mind should I be convinced otherwise. I do find such investigations help
me
> to focus on God and develop my relationship with Him.
>
> I do realise that I am not saying anything that anybody here hasn't heard
> before but, if I am to post messages to this list at all, I thought that
it
> would be nice for you to know a little bit about where I am.
>
> In love, Guy
>
>
Received on Wed Feb 25 16:49:12 2004